War without end

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are several cringe-worthy headlines in the news today:

First, Dempsey
urges Afghan approval of post-2014 U.S. presence

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday that he wanted
the United States and Afghanistan to complete a security partnership
agreement by October, allowing for the continued presence of U.S. troops
in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey played down the chances that no U.S.
troops would remain in Afghanistan after the United States formally
terminates its combat role by the end of next year. He urged rapid
completion of an accord that would pave the way for a long-term American
presence here, and he expressed optimism that the agreement could be
completed soon, despite public opposition from Afghan President Hamid

Without a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) the U.S. would withdraw all combat personnel in 2014, as it did in Iraq when the SOFA negotiated by President George W. Bush expired at midnight on the 31st of December, 2011, without a new SOFA agreement.

Next, Congressional
panels approve arms aid to Syrian opposition

The House and Senate intelligence committees have approved CIA
weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, allowing the Obama
administration to move ahead on the stalled program, senior
congressional and administration officials said Monday.

Despite ongoing “very strong concerns about the strength of the
administration’s plans in Syria and its chances for success,” the House
committee reached consensus “after much discussion and review,”
Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said in a statement.

The agreement allows money already in the CIA’s budget to be
reprogrammed for the Syria operation, a covert action that President
Obama approved early last month. The infrastructure for the program,
which also includes training, logistics and intelligence assistance —
most of it based in Jordan — is already in place and the arms would
begin to flow within the next several weeks.

Some lawmakers have
criticized the proposal as insufficient to make a difference on the
battlefield, and called for U.S. air support for the beleaguered rebels
with attacks on Syrian airfields or establishment of a no-fly zone over
rebel-held territory.

Others have objected to any U.S. military
involvement in the Syrian civil war — a position supported in numerous
American public opinion polls — and questioned whether the
administration has a realistic long-term plan.

In recent weeks the Assad regime has regained the upper-hand with the assistance of Hezbollah units from Lebanon, as the opposition forces fighting his regime are spending more time fighting each other for control. How we are to identify who the "good guys" are — indeeed, if there are any good guys at all — is a question not answered by Congress or the administration. Putting the CIA in charge — remember the "weapons of mass destruction" intelligence fiasco in Iraq? — is not reassuring. The U.S. is stumbling into a sectarian civil war. Pentagon Analysis: Military Involvement in Syria Could Cost $1 Billion a Month.

And finally, there is the Neocon war monger, Little Lindsey Graham, who wants to get his war on with Iran. Senator
To Introduce Resolution Authorizing War With Iran

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Tuesday that he plans to introduce a
resolution authorizing war with Iran if “nothing changes” regarding the
Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by the end of the year.

“If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a
resolution that will authorize the use of military force to prevent
Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,” Graham told a “cheering” audience
at a conference put on by the right-wing group Christians United for
Israel, according to CQ Roll Call.

“The only way to convince Iran to halt their nuclear program is to make it clear that we will take it out,” Graham said, echoing comments he made last week, calling the war authorization “the last card to play in a very dangerous situation.”

Experts and former top officials have been warning that ratcheting up
pressure and rhetoric against Iran — particularly after Iranians just
elected the most moderate presidential candidate available to them —
would be counterproductive.

Graham may have difficulty winning support for his resolution as many of his colleagues are already on record opposing an Iran war authorization.

There is of course the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq, which could boil over into a civil war. And there is the ongoing revolution in Egypt, which also could boil over into a sectarian civil war.

Mankind never wearies of war without end. Peace is only a dream.

One response to “War without end

  1. Should this be a surprise? We have 1000 military bases strewn around the globe, an annual military budget on its way to $1 Trillion, a ravenous, ever-expanding military contracting industry, and we’re talking about making military service the primary, possibly the exclusive, vehicle for a million or so immigrant kids to attain legal status.

    The world is our battlefield.